«campaign and argue» AND a ban. ALL that helps those ill-treated women.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I understand the rationale - I would argue that placing a barrier between someone’s actually held belief and their ability to function in the world could be highly counter-productive.
There’s so much more than can be explained in a tweet. Did you watch the clip above? I try to explain it. Under fundamentalist Islam a women should not be seen, heard, or smelled by any man other than her husband. Banning it actually frees women from the obligation to wear it.
-
-
I do understand. And there are - frankly - a lot of things that religions ask of their adherents I think are deeply bad for them, and are counter-productive and dangerous and limiting. And I wish they didn’t believe in them or want to engage in them.
-
To me it’s akin to the laws that demand medical practitioners treat children from Jehovas Witness families whether their parents consent or not. Parents are obviously happy that the law is going to ensure their children are cared for-and their religious conscious can stay clear.
- 18 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.